Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (83687)	12/20/1999 3:47:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572226

Re: "People who know what they are talking about (Scumbria!) can you comment on what could be the strategy (other than lower die size) behind this weird L2 being smaller than the L1 cache? " The first obvious speculation is that this is a way to salvage otherwise unshipable die. EP

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (83687)	12/20/1999 4:56:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572226

<Ace's was talking about Exclusive cache, but when they talked about it they expected L2 = L1 size.> One possibility (assuming that the 64k number is valid) is that AMD looked at the popular benchmarks and decided that 64k does add a significant benchmarking advantage. (I once was part of such a engineering exercise a long while back when Dhrystone benchmark first showedup) Yeah! I would be looking for some education if there is significant performance increment in real-life applications with an additional 64k. Chuck